Benton RSS Feed
CTCNet’s 2006 anniversary conference will highlight 15 years of CTCs and community technology: the history, the changes and innovations in the field. An expected 500 leaders will gather together bringing resources and experience to share.
The CTC Network is rooted in community-based efforts, deepened by regional collaborations, and further strengthened by the national exchange of best and effective practices for CTCs. For more than 15 years, CTCs have used technology to engage citizens by offering technology access, training, and support in underserved communities to meet a range of socio-economic challenges.
Our goal at the 15th anniversary CTCNet conference is to demonstrate the reach, capacity, and impact of CTCs across the United States, as well as highlight our relationships across domestic borders. Whether you have been part of the community technology movement from early on – or you came on in recent years, join this incredible group of people to reflect, share, and celebrate our history -- and the future to come. Highlights of conference events include:
An educational program of 40 breakout sessions and half-day workshops
Special events including the CTC Advocacy Day and a 15th Anniversary Reception
An Exhibit Hall featuring an array of tools, resources and services for CTCs
Networking and resource sharing activities, including CTC site visits
Feature panel discussions on current topics; and
The Annual CTCNet Membership Meeting.
The Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006, sponsored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), was approved by that Committee last week, but its future is murky due to a bruising battle over a Network Neutrality amendment that split the panel largely along partisan lines. Sen Stevens prevailed in keeping Internet nondiscrimination language from the bill after a Net Neutrality amendment failed on an 11-11 vote. (Tie votes mean amendments fail.) But the price of that victory might be that the full Senate never considers the bill because it would need 60 votes to block a filibuster. The Senate has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent. "If this amendment goes down, you can expect a massive fight on your hands from a lot of folks, not just in the Senate but in the country," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) moments before the net neutrality amendment's defeat. "It's not going to be pretty." Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) said the Senate had to avoid net neutrality provisions because they would ultimately take down the entire bill. As the Senate panel was wrapping up its work, Sen Stevens was already talking about paring back the bill and working with the Judiciary Committee on crafting net neutrality language from an antitrust law perspective. "We're going to have to take a good look at it and see how we might slim it down," he said, optimistic that a bill of some kind can become law this year. "I do believe this bill should be passed and I do believe we will get to the point where we will pass it."
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6348280.html?display=Breaking+News
* Net Neutrality Is Key
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6350827.html?display=Policy
* For more on the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 see:
http://www.benton.org/node/2173
Senate Telecom Bill's Future Murky
WYDEN PUTS 'HOLD' ON TELECOM BILL
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable 6/29, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has put a hold on the video franchise/telecom reform bill that just passed the Senate Commerce Committee. The hold means that the bill could not be passed on unanimous consent, which is without a Senate floor vote and debate, but that is because to do so all 100 Senators would have to approve of it. By not approving of it, Sen Wyden automatically takes that option off the table. But the hold, which is a courtesy rather than a rule, anyway, does not prevent the leadership from scheduling a floor vote on the bill. But what might prevent that floor time is not having the 60 votes to block the filibuster Sen Wyden will likely employ. The leadership has indicated to Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens that he will need to line up those 60 votes. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has indicated that Sen Stevens will not get the 60 votes without the addition of strong net neutrality language. But Sen Stevens has said Net Neutrality will be a poison pill, and has heard as much from the House side, whose bill also does not contain language expressly preventing discrimination in the provision of Internet access.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6348408?display=Breaking+News
* Stopping the Big Giveaway - by John Kerry
[Commentary] "I voted against this lousy bill for two reasons: because Net Neutrality and Internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society, and both were pushed aside by the Republicans."
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/
* Blocking Telecom Could Become Campaign Issue
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) says the Republicans may be able to make the telecom bill an election issue if Democrats block the Senate Commerce-passed version from a floor vote. He says the bill is all about lowering cable rates. "If our Democrat colleagues block brining it on the floor for debate, it's just one more thing we can talk about in the area of obstruction.... The ability to move information around is so key to competing in a global economy, I think we can make it a campaign issue because it fits with a lot of other things that have been blocked that are really important to our future."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6348755?display=Breaking+News
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6348408?display=Breaking%20News
GOOGLE SAYS BILL COULD SPARK ANTITRUST FIGHT
[SOURCE: Reuters 7/4]
Google warned on Tuesday it will not hesitate to file antitrust complaints if high-speed Internet providers abuse the market power they could receive from Congress. The Senate Commerce Committee last week approved sweeping communications reform legislation that would make it easier for telephone companies like AT&T to offer subscription television to consumers. But it narrowly rejected attempts by some lawmakers to strengthen safeguards on Internet service, which had pitted high-speed Internet, or broadband, providers such as AT&T against Internet content companies like Google. The battle centered on whether broadband providers can charge more to carry unaffiliated content or to guarantee service quality, an issue called Net neutrality. "If the legislators...insist on neutrality, we will be happy. If they do not put it in, we will be less happy but then we will have to wait and see whether or not there actually is any abuse," Vint Cerf, a Google vice president and one of the pioneers of the Internet, said Tuesday. "If we are not successful in our arguments... then we will simply have to wait until something bad happens and then we will make known our case to the Department of Justice's anti-trust division," he added.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID...
TECH FACEOFF: NET NEUTRALITY, IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
[SOURCE: Washington Post 7/2, AUTHOR: Kim Hart and Sara Kehaulani Goo]
From Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley, it's become one of the most controversial and confusing topics to hit the tech industry this year: network neutrality. The term is confusing, the ad campaigns have further clouded the issue, and it's no longer easy to tell who's for it and who's not. Whatever becomes of the concept could affect what you pay for connectivity, the sites you'll have access to and the types of services (think video, music and Internet phone offerings) you'll be able to use. Net neutrality is the push to prohibit a pay-for-speed Internet pricing structure that the cable and phone companies -- those that provide high-speed Internet connections -- have proposed. To better understand it all, go back to the old "information superhighway" analogy, where the phone and cable lines that connect your computer to the Web are the on-ramps to that highway. Should the companies who built those on-ramps -- Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. in the Washington region -- be allowed to impose a toll system that charges Web companies such as Google Inc. a higher fee to reach your computer faster than its competitors, such as Yahoo Inc.? Is that the essence of a free-market system? Or is it one that creates inequality on a road that should have no tolls at all? The jury -- in this case, Congress -- is still out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR200607...
(requires registration)
Net Neutrality, In the Eye of the Beholder
VERIZON'S TV LICENSING MAY BE ONLY HALF THE FIGHT
[SOURCE: Reuters 7/3, AUTHOR: Ritsuko Ando]
Verizon looks increasingly impatient to roll out its Web-based television service nationwide, suing a Maryland county last week for hampering its entry, but getting licenses may only be half the battle. Analysts say that while Verizon's state-of-the-art fiber optic network allows multiple channels of high-definition video and faster downloading, the phone company must show more proof that its multibillion-dollar investment is worthwhile. Verizon will not say how much it is spending on the Internet protocol television service, named FiOS, on which it is banking to win back customers lured away by cable operators' "triple play" of Internet, phone and video bundles. But analysts estimate Verizon is spending around $700 to $1,000 per customer, double the spending of rival phone company AT&T Inc. and spooking shareholders. "The market hates Verizon's level of capital expenditure, although you could say it's a necessary evil," said Kent Custer, an analyst at A.G. Edwards & Sons. Verizon says its investment will pay off as demand grows for high-quality video, speedy downloading of movies and interactive television and gaming -- in short, having more computer-like functions.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&story...
* Verizon Sues Maryland County Over Franchise
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6348655?display=Breaking+News
AS FCC DIGS INTO MEDIA OWNERSHIP, BIG MEDIA NO LONGER CARES
[SOURCE: Washington Post 6/29, AUTHOR: Frank Ahrens]
When the government's attempt to relax media ownership rules was defeated in court two years ago, some hailed it as a victory against putting too much power in the hands of too few media lords. Now, the government is taking up the issue again, but the media landscape is radically different. Since 2003, the media giants have greatly expanded their presence on the Internet, buying successful Web sites or redoubling their own efforts. The continued rollout of high-speed Internet, the improvement in online content and an explosion of handheld devices have combined to give Big Media much greater reach and potentially greater influence than it would have had, were companies allowed to buy a few more television stations each. But the times, technology and media marketplace have changed so much since the FCC began its ownership review last time, in 2002, that some of the same media giants that lobbied for changes before -- such as Tribune Co. -- may take little advantage of changes this time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR200606...
(requires registration)
As FCC Digs Into Ownership, Big Media No Longer Cares
COURT REFUSES TO DELAY AUGUST WIRELESS AUCTION
[SOURCE: Reuters 6/29, AUTHOR: Jeremy Pelofsky]
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to delay the August sale of valuable wireless airwaves despite concerns raised by some smaller carriers. Council Tree Communications and others had sought a stay to block the auction from starting until the court could rule on Federal Communications Commission regulations aimed at limiting eligibility for discounts during the sale. The agency offers discounts of up to 25 percent depending on a company's financial position, a move that was designed to encourage smaller entrepreneurial companies to participate. However, some have struck partnerships with national carriers. Small bidders like Council Tree had worried the new rules would make it difficult to get financing to fund their bidding and thus barred from the auction. But the Court ruled that the petitioners failed to establish that they would suffer irreparable harm without a delay and other bidders have indicated a willingness to participate despite the new restrictions. The FCC is slated to begin auctioning the licenses for advanced wireless services on August 9 in a sale analysts have said could raise $8 billion to $15 billion.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&story...
PHONE CARD USERS MUST PAY ACCESS FEES
[SOURCE: Dow Jones/ Associated Press 7/4]
The Federal Communications Commission has ruled that issuers of prepaid calling cards must pay connection fees and help subsidize phone service in rural areas. AT&T will have to repay the $553 million in access fees -- charges paid to other carriers to connect calls -- and Universal Service Fund payments that its predecessor, then known as the AT&T Corporation, had withheld on phone calling cards. AT&T had argued that because its cards offered enhancements like advertising, the cards were information services exempt from fees that apply to telecommunications services. The Commission also said that providers of prepaid calling cards cannot reduce payments by classifying certain calls as Internet traffic. Regulators said that calling cards that use "Internet in the middle" technology must make rural phone-subsidy contributions and pay access fees. Any payments that were withheld must be repaid, the Commission said. As for military personnel, the commission said that prepaid calling cards sold under a contract with the Defense Department would be exempt from universal service payments. The exemption "should help ensure that our soldiers are able to obtain calling cards at reduced prices," the FCC said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/business/04cards.html
(requires registration)
* FCC Order:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-79A1.doc
* Statement of Commissioner Adelstein
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-79A2.doc
Phone Card Issuers Must Pay Access Fees
HOUSE TO MEDIA: BACK OFF
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable 6/30, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Following a heated debate, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives sent a message to the media Thursday night: If somebody in the government discloses classified intelligence programs like the terrorist bank-records tracking program, don't report it. By a vote of 227 to 183, the House passed a resolution supporting the Bush administration terrorist-tracking effort and effectively condemning sources and the media outlets who publicized the secret program. Democrats had tried, but failed, to offer their own version that also supported anti-terrorism efforts but did not include what they suggested was a valentine to the administration in the form of unalloyed approval of the conduct of its anti-terrorism effort. The resolution reads: Resolved, That the House of Representatives... expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6348788?display=Breaking+News
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6348788?display=Breaking%20News